8500 review... or is it another preview

yellowood

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2001
44
0
18,530
Tom's Radeon 8500 review is finally out. Very dissapointing that the drivers are still incomplete, the review felt more like a second preview...

But quite a few benchmarks seem to show that the Ti500 is in for some serious competition. Maybe this will translate into some sort of price war :smile: .


-----
It's a shame we have only one soul to sell...
 
G

Guest

Guest
I saw this review completely different than you I guess although I also am disappointed about the drivers. ATI has lost again. The titanium series is king. ATI was not honest. Features they promised are not even working. Are we really suppose to believe they ever worked?? Wouldn't ATI have released the drivers that made the features work if they ever did?? Jeez... I and many others see it as dishonesty - something more than early drivers is brewing here. Many folks that got in on the Dell deal on a few other forums(8500 in retail box for 200$ shipped overnight) have now canceled their orders. The one thing ATI was gonna have over the titanium series isn't even working... If ATI couldn't get it to work well enough for the release.... it will never function as they planned. You better believe ATI had EVERY SINGLE card on the table trying to get the features functioning before realease and they failed. Therefore the main feature they promised isn't included. Nice try ATI.
 

njeske

Distinguished
Jul 26, 2001
400
0
18,780
Your argument is actually working against you. You say that ATI lost due to one feature that isn't implemented yet. However, the benchmarks ran in the current review on THG didn't even test the FSAA features. Regardless of whether or not this single feature has been implemented or not, ATI still managed to beat Nvidia more often than not. The review states multiple times that the drivers are weak in several areas as of right now, so ATI's numbers can only advance in the future and put more space between them and Nvidia.

I am not taking sides in the whole ATI vs. Nvidia thing, because that is a pointless argument. However, your statements were incredibly weak and I am hoping that maybe you can come up with some better facts to strengthen your viewpoint.


<font color=red>"I'm not gonna launch a $2 million missile at a $10 tent and hit a camel's butt." -Bush</font color=red>
 

yellowood

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2001
44
0
18,530
It's a shame that the 8500 is still not yet "XP-ready" (windows or athlon for that matter). I don't care how many fps you get.

But I'm hopeful that driver updates will quickly show the card to be stable under win XP/2k/98.

-----
It's a shame we have only one soul to sell...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Look at the benchmarks again. Notice that the ATI 8500 is almost exactly the same as the GF3 Ti 200 at HIGH detail. High detail is all that matters anymore.... I don't think anyone here spends 200$+ on a video card to run LOW detail (which is where the ATI wins). The two cards I mentioned are also about 100$ different in price.... the gf3 being cheaper. I find it interesting that you call my argument "weak" when ATI has based this entire launch on features that do not exist. I understand the driver will most likely get better.... they surely could not get worse. The thing is this.... ATI claimed NEW technologies and did not deliver. That is a fact. As I said before... IF the new features ever worked... they surely would have had them working at launch (considering they based the entire campaign on these new features). Therefore they sold cards based on "vaporware". This is like buying a sleep sofa without a matress.
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
Doesn't Smoothvision (Programable FSAA) depend on DX8.1? Hasn't ATI inform Tom that it will be enabled at the end of the month, go figure. DX8.1 won't be released until XP is released meaning that the SDK to make .exe files won't be released until 25Oct01. Duhhh, cry if ATI can't deliver after DX8.1 is released because Smoothvision needs DX8.1. ATI could use the beta DX8.1 to make the exec file but probably won't or can't due to a problem. In any case give it about a month or so to see if ATI is blowing real smoke. If you really have to buy a video card then the 8500 is still a kickass card that would virtually blow any other card away in 3d, video and who knows maybe 2d like the Radeon not to mention being a hydravision capable setup. For prices hovering around $250 and less that is one hell of a deal, TrueVision? Tom didn't mention anything there, something that the 8500 does now. I am going to wait and see how ATI handles these discrepancies before I commit.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 10/16/01 06:36 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

somerandomguy

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2001
577
0
18,980
Review or Preview? ATI are selling this card, so that makes it a review, and personally I think ATI dropped the ball. They should have held onto the card at least until it was stable on all platforms.

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
 
G

Guest

Guest
I was kinda bummed about it. I was expecting (Ok, wishing for) another technology jump with the 8500. We didn't get it.... and won't from the 8500, in my opinion.

HOWEVER! Has anybody noticed that BOTH the 8500 and the GeForce3 Ti 500 kick major azz?

I'll grant you they are so similar in performance that we see endless arguments about which one is the best, but I wonder if anyone who owns either of them thinks they got screwed.

I for one want to thank both companies for the fire blowing out the backs of our cases! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
I wouldn't be too bummed! Hey look at these results of QuakeIII

<A HREF="http://www.rivastation.com/review/r8500_1/r8500_q3dm1_1280x1024-32.gif" target="_new">Radeon 8500 beating GF3 TI500, yeap in XP!</A>

<A HREF="http://www.rivastation.com/review/r8500_1/r8500_q3dm1_1024x768-32.gif" target="_new">Opps, not again, hey man what is going on</A>

What's going on here, the Radeon 8500 is beating the mighty GF3 TI 500 and in XP. HMMMMMMMMM????
 

OzzieBloke

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2001
167
0
18,680
I think I share the view of many here... I really, really want to like the Radeon 8500, but until they have mature drivers and actually run what they say the card will do, I will not be happy. Or at least, 100% happy. New technology should perform better, not worse.

Fix your damn drivers, ATI! It's like havhing a blue-haired granny behind the wheel of a Porsche...
 
G

Guest

Guest
that's exactly what I am talking about...

1.8 fps out of nearly 170......

you see that as a major victory????

they're equivalent..... where's the technology advance?
where is the difference?

I think BOTH cards are awsome, but anyone hoping for a major step up with either is gonna be sadly dissappointed!
 
you people sound like a bunch of nerds! lol!

thats all i gotta say is this, ati all in wonder radeon 8500dv with 2 firewire ports, radio remote, VIVO, tv tuner, enough software bundles to make a gay guy go hetero i tells ya! show me a geforce card that can deliver that!

as for anything else it's really a preference. To be honest i'd consider geforce3 maybe only if i was a hardcore gamer, but i'm not! I barely have time to be lazy anymore. ya it's horrible! I need a tv tuner to watch tv. No one beats ati when it comes to picture quality and it's tc tuner and software bundles!

but dude you gotta admit the new all in wonder card [-peep-] kicks some serious ass! DUDE firewire ports going through the agp port! might actually get the full 400Mb/s lol... i'm thinking firewire scanner... and dude the remote looks kickass! have you seen this [-peep-] thing!? you can remote your damn car with this [-peep-] thing!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
you see that as a major victory????

they're equivalent..... where's the technology advance?
where is the difference?

Lets see, it definitely kicks the GF3 @ss good, makes the Ultra look slow and is slightly faster than Nvidia's best and $50 cheaper. Oh wait, it has the best video/DVD, better 2d, DX8.1 compliant vice DX8.0 (whippy doo) Truform and a upcoming Smoothvision, not only that lets see, oh yea, Direct component output to hook up your ultimate game machine to a 65" HDTV set and really scream at playing games not to mention Hydravision. HEHEHEHEH everything I just said Nvidia doesn't have, now what is the question "where's the technology advance?" hey man, climb out from under the rock, rock. :lol:
 
G

Guest

Guest
OK... I would like to start off by saying as I have said before... TITANIUM WINS AGAIN! Go look at anandtech's review. Take a peek at a post I made in this thread a few days ago saying the Titanium 200 was as good as the radeon.... I was almost right... only the Titanium 200 is better then the radeon 8500 and the Titanium 500 blows it away :)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Couple of days ago there was an article in this site that CLEARLY showed that AthlonXP is THE FASTEST processor for gaming. Yet P4 is used in R8500 review :) Makes me wonder...
 

LoveGuRu

Distinguished
Sep 21, 2001
612
0
18,980
the P4 was used to make the Nvidia chip look better, we all know that XP drivers are G3 optimized, and the new ATI chip crashes with XP(amd)..

so tom in bias after all..what do u know..

btw..kinda sick of all these XP xrappy products..
WinXP,AMDXP,XP drivers..
whats next CD-ROMXP?!

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
Since Win9x is by the far the predominate OS as well as gaming OS while XP is in its infancy, it would have been more revealing having Win9x performance and W2k/XP performance. Plus AMD is a pretty big player especially with high end video cards so an Athlon XP system would also make alot of sense. Hopefully Tom will do a fully indepth review once ATI gets their heads out of their @ss about drivers.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 10/17/01 10:51 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

eden

Champion
I totally agree with you man.
All right so it performs better, but using Q3 now for benching is no longer performance FPS (over 200 needs an alien with 200 FPS perceiving eyes) but rather an increase value. We don't look at FPS when playing Q3 in such cards but rather the number increase shows how each is performing over unperceivable frames.
I doubt that when I get my Asus GF3 card I will complain. Any games over 50 FPS(well generally over 24FPS for real smooth) is satisfying, and I don't think any game in the next year at 1024*768 at max detail will lag. GF2 Ultra people are not complaining yet about FPS drops, so why should WE the owners of these 2 new cards? Getting a Rad8500 or GF3 card to see FPS is not possible unless at max resolution with full detail and FSAA technology, but now we depend more on its features, and graphical adjustments and capabilities. I wanna see the local moron who think rants about getting a TI500 from his GF3 standard screaming he got it and get better FPS now at Q3, OH WOW!!! ... ring bells, tell the pres, that you just increased from 200 to 210 FPS!!!

Who will need a GF4 right now if he is so happy with his GF3? unless you are benching and using intensive 3d editing... I doubt.